Evaluation of a helical coil heat exchanger in a forced convection environment

Neeraj Sunheriya,Jayant Giri,T. Sathish,Rajkumar Chadge,Chetan Mahatme,A. Parthiban,Praveen Barmavatu

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10751-024-02043-4

2024-08-07

Abstract:Heat transfer methods aim to maximize heat transmission and minimize pressure loss. Published efforts have focused on active and passive heat transport techniques. Curved tubes, such those in helical coil heat exchangers, improve heat transmission without active intervention. Experimental and computational studies of helical coils under forced convection have been done. This work examined the heat transmission and pressure drop of forced convection helical coil tubes using experimental and CFD methods. CATIA V5 builds, ICEM 14.5 meshes, and ANSYS 14.5 solves a three-dimensional model. A k-turbulent flow model and algorithm simulate fluid flow and heat transfer to properly predict heat transfer characteristics. Experiments and computer simulations determined the temperature and pressure loss at a particular flow rate and input temperature. The model is validated by comparing numerical simulation temperature differences to experimental data. A boundary condition that maintains a constant temperature in numerical analysis may provide incorrect results. This makes the boundary condition a connected system. To calculate temperature, a K-turbulence model (RNG) solver is used with curvature correction and swirl dominated flow. The project includes turning a 12-mm straight tube into a 120-mm helical coil with a 25-mm pitch. To simulate forced convection, this coil is placed in a duct. Experiment is done at 353 K and 343 K with 1.23, 1.66, and 2.1 l/min flow rates. The CFD simulation used the same design and flow conditions. One end of the duct has a fan that blows air over the coil and lets hot water run through it. With a constant wall temperature as the boundary condition, the conjugate heat transfer between the water and air in the coil and fan is examined in a cross flow pattern. Different flow rates were used to validate temperature difference data. The experimental and CFD values varied by 7% or less due to measurement errors in system temperature and heat losses.